Richmond the American International University in London Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061395640
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
6154166840
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$22,353,442
Expenses
$38,579,236
Assets
$12,274,200
Liabilities
$75,613,500

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PROF PHILIP DEANS (PRESIDENT & VICE CHANCELLO)

Highest reported compensation

  • PROF PHILIP DEANS (PRESIDENT & VICE CHANCELLO): $373,326 total reported compensation
  • KELLY COATE (TRUSTEE): $233,944 total reported compensation
  • DR ALLISION COLE-STUTZ (VP & PRO VICE CHANCELLOR S): $184,827 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The university's mission is to educate and inform future generations by providing them with the knowledge and support to think critically, the freedom to challenge assumptions and the skills to work with others.

What it reported doing in 2024

The university has taught 1222 (full-time equivalent) students at the undergraduate and post graduate level. The teaching took place at the university's campuses in london & leeds (uk).

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 89% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 79.4%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -72.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.32; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 6.16; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 79.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $30.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $373K · 20 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $6.4M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.